HAWABIBI Vs. ABDUL GAFUR SIDUMIYA NALBANDH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arise out of two separate orders. Both orders are passed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Surat on 06.07.2015. In Special Civil Application No. 16096 of 2015, the order under challenge is passed below application Ex. 49, by which the appellants' - original defendants' application seeking to produce documentary evidence on record in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005 was rejected. In Special Civil Application No. 16093 of 2015, the petitioners' application below Ex. 50 filed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005 seeking amendment in the written statement Ex. 9 in Regular Civil Suit No. 767 of 1985 is rejected.

(2.) The facts are as under:

(3.) Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting both the applications at Exs. 49 &50. According to him, as far as application Ex. 49 is concerned, the order of the trial Court was self contradictory inasmuch as it observed that unless there is evidence to suggest that the decree of 1950 was applicable, to reject production of the same and permit it to come as evidence on record in itself was inherently bad. Mr. Vyas further contended that once the plaintiffs were granted permission by the Court to produce the property card on record which specifically reflected the settlement of the suit, it would be unjust for the defendant - appellants to deprive them from producing the consent decree of the suit.